WHY doesn't all the monkeys/ape evolve to human...?! huh! And some other speciese hasn't evolve....I mean , if X evolve into Z.... then why are there many X hasn't evolve into Z............
missing link...??......if Dinosaur can leave fossils , why aren't this "missing link' leave some fossils behind.......

"Aut Ceaser , Aut Nihil." (This is Latin grammar)

"I'll be loquacious allright! I'll loquace like no one ever loquaced before."(This is BAD grammar)

I personally think that the majority of looking into the past is a waste of time and resources. Mainly because people aren't thinking about the here and now.

Missing link is all subjective because of the intelligent design vs. evolution idea.

Some think there was some preform of human where they were disfigured, some think we came from apes, some think some single celled organism into something else.. who knows? It's not going to do much. Would be interesting to find a gene in the human DNA that actually devolves someone though.

See, I'm sure if people figured out how to devolve humans, then we could probably find the real accurate thing we evolved from.

An estimate is that we have discovered less than 1% of the fosils out there. So you see, even the math says the missing link could be out there. Plus, evolution is a complex process, based on natural selection. As long as nothing happens to prevent apes from having babies, their species will live on.

"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

Yes the Apes live on indeed, but the "new guy" asked why don't these apes also evolve further since they are still here, into intelligent beings such as ourselves (mankind for those who dont know)?

I have always seen this process to be highly impossible. For example if we share a common ancestor with apes, then why is it only us who developed our brains and decided to become weaker and move onto the plain lands rather than the deep bush where apes live.

I would think a dumb human like creature running around in the plains of the serengeti to be a highly hunted creature which would eventually go into extinction like the doddo did!

First thing if you read Newguy's post, it shows that he missed the important point that excalibur recalls us: In evolution X evolves into Y and Z, and "Y" apes or monkey are no more "X" than the "Z" human. So X evolution lead to 2 groups that are completely different in their survival strategies and then evolved into 2 different species.

As for excalibur conclusion, I would just point out that brains is only one strategy, some of our ancestors choose to stay in the trees and succesfully developed there our ancestors were lucky enough to survive, probably the predation pressure was not strong enugh to wipe them out, but put a strong selective advantage in having more brains to survive.
And remember that lions or other predators usually don't kill for the pleasure like humans often did (poor dodos) and that humans were already "aware" and probably partly adapted to the survival in those conditions. maybe one chance to be hunted down by a lion with lots of food on the ground was better than starving when competing ith others that were a little more adapted to life in the trees...

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)

Since the arrival of the first humans, we are aware that predition was actually far more common as fossils of a wide range of predatory creatures have been unearthed. However i still wonder why no concrete firm evidence of wide scale fossils of mixing link humans are never found rather than small discoveries and even hoaxes at some points

Some scientists always go back and claim that it is always more difficult to find terrestrial fossils. But this always leads to the question, how come Dinosaurs are found all the time?

Its a well known theory that Dinosaurs existed many millions of years ago, and started to apparently evolve in the Cretaceous (even though the same missing link problem applies here) and were eventually extinct by the Triassic.

Therefore if the Dinosaur fossils are found by the plenty then why not our so called ape like ancestors?

Most of the fossils found also face great problems, as modern man is also found in the same time scale making them contempories or existing at the same time. So how can one have evolved to the other?

Many of the fossils were found in the same locality and at the same stratigraphic level (depth in the Earth), but according to the theory of evolution they should be separated by vast amounts of time. We find modern Homo sapien fossils being found with Neanderthals, archaic Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. This problem, for evolutionists, is independent of the dating schemes

So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

Compare how many years dinos have existed and how many humans have existed. Shouldn't the one that existed longer have more fossils?

Is the environment that dinos lived in the same as the ones that humans lived in? Differences in environment would mean differences in perservation of fossils. And who do you think is more likely to be found stuck in a tar pit? A dumb dinosaur or a relatively smarter primate?

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

mithrilhack wrote:Dinosaurs aren't found all the time, there isn't one in my backyard.

Couple of logical fallacies-

Compare how many years dinos have existed and how many humans have existed. Shouldn't the one that existed longer have more fossils?

Is the environment that dinos lived in the same as the ones that humans lived in? Differences in environment would mean differences in perservation of fossils. And who do you think is more likely to be found stuck in a tar pit? A dumb dinosaur or a relatively smarter primate?

Well according to evolution a dumb humanlike ape is quite likely to be found stuck in a tar pit but ofcourse it does not happen.

How do you explain modern humans being found in the same stratigraphic levels as the so called early man?

Or did the weather only move the modern homo sapien fossils a stratigraphic level whilest not quite fancying the homo erectus?

well because if you were to make an artificial stratification you should find them in different levels. Howerever:
1. 1 milion years is a small age in geological time.
2. Weather and other environmental factors do influence it
3. You can radiocarbon them anyway, so i don't see your point

"As a biologist, I firmly believe that when you're dead, you're dead. Except for what you live behind in history. That's the only afterlife" - J. Craig Venter

How long of a time period does one strata constitute?
As Mr Cheese posted, if one strata constitutes a million years, then of course modern and older fossils can be found together.

And are we assuming that the strata are not disturbed in anyway? I remember in 7th grade, talks about plate tectonics causing different strata to be mixed when one plate crashes into another.

Rock strata isn't that accurate a method for finding the age of a fossil when compared with radiometric dating. And it isn't just carbon isotopes, you can use others with longer half-lives for older stuff. Does the data from these indicate that the fossils are from the same age? Or are the scientists lying about that too?

Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace; ~Niebuhr

MrMistery wrote:well because if you were to make an artificial stratification you should find them in different levels. Howerever:1. 1 milion years is a small age in geological time. 2. Weather and other environmental factors do influence it3. You can radiocarbon them anyway, so i don't see your point

Evolutionists have found it remarkable that the taxonomy and phylogenetic relationships of the earliest known representatives of our own genus, Homo, remain obscure.

Advances in techniques for absolute dating and reassessments of the fossils themselves have rendered untenable a simple unilineal model of human evolution, in which Homo habilis succeeded the Australopithecines and then evolved via H. erectus into H. sapiens-but no clear alternative consensus has yet emerged.

Infact there seems to be many problems in the radiometric dating in itself. Even though radiometric dating is a useful approach in finding out how old our planet is vaguely, its not very good for precisely testing the ages of fossils. As then one would have to put into consideration many faults, such as the influence of the environment on the fossils and Elements.

Even after all of this there seems to be no solid age correlation for so called early human fossils without even considering the problems I mentioned above!

Last edited by Excalibur on Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:16 am, edited 1 time in total.